No one spoke up, and no patch was resubmitted. So I am resolving the
ticket.
kid51
There's been no activity in this thread for 10+ months. In the last
posting on Apr 24 2007, mdiep wrote:
>
> I was taking a look at this patch and tried to apply it, but it no
> longer applies cleanly. If you
> re-submit so that it applies cleanly, I'll check in if I can get all
> tests to pass.
That's why I was surprised. Even if it doesn't improve performance
(something it was never supposed to do in the first place), the question is
whether it hurts performance significantly, e.g. whether the tradeoff
between better code and faster code is worth it. Currently, I see no
evidence that
On Mar 30, 2007, at 9:19 PM, chromatic wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2007 13:59, Alek Storm wrote:
I used a simple benchmark to compare the relative speeds of Parrot
with and without the patch, and I was surprised to find that the test
script runs (very roughly) 10% faster *with* the patch. Can s
On Friday 30 March 2007 13:59, Alek Storm wrote:
> I used a simple benchmark to compare the relative speeds of Parrot
> with and without the patch, and I was surprised to find that the test
> script runs (very roughly) 10% faster *with* the patch. Can someone
> confirm this? Running revision 178
I used a simple benchmark to compare the relative speeds of Parrot
with and without the patch, and I was surprised to find that the test
script runs (very roughly) 10% faster *with* the patch. Can someone
confirm this? Running revision 17860; benchmark script attached; run
as:
$ parrot bench.pir
Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2007 23:01 schrieb chromatic:
> On Thursday 29 March 2007 13:27, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > > Compactness does not supersede good design.
> >
> > Basically & in theorie yes, but don't always forget performance.
>
> Until we get completeness and correctness and cleanliness, I
On Thursday 29 March 2007 13:27, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> > Compactness does not supersede good design.
> Basically & in theorie yes, but don't always forget performance.
Until we get completeness and correctness and cleanliness, I really think we
should forget performance. It's awfully diffic
Am Donnerstag, 29. März 2007 00:00 schrieb Alek Storm:
> On 3/28/07, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) This ism't needed, these pointers are only valid and needed up to the
> > next
> > sub call/return.
>
> The current_results member already lives in Parrot_Context; this patch
> jus
On 3/28/07, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) This ism't needed, these pointers are only valid and needed up to the
next
sub call/return.
The current_results member already lives in Parrot_Context; this patch
just moves the rest of them there as well. Variables can't be global
simp
Am Mittwoch, 28. März 2007 03:14 schrieb Alek Storm:
> This patch moves args_signature, params_signature, returns_signature,
> current_args, current_params, and current_returns from Parrot_Interp
> to Parrot_Context. This makes the interpreter more reentrant, which
> is always a good thing.
Nope.
# New Ticket Created by "Alek Storm"
# Please include the string: [perl #42155]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=42155 >
This patch moves args_signature, params_signature, returns_signature,
current_args, curr
12 matches
Mail list logo
